5

Relevant parts of the text below

If you love your husband
Get yourself circumcised
Because the germs under your prepuce
Can reach his mouth when he pleasures your clitoris
And cause him oral cancer

...

The culprit is Human Papilloma Virus
Found in the prepuces of the uncircumcised

Muslimahs for Circumcision

The meme was shared on Facebook in Muslimahs for Sunna and Muslimahs for Female Circumcision according to Twitter screenshots. According to this website, a facebook group called "Islamic Female Circumcision" also had this meme, and it was deleted by Facebook.

I tried searching, and mainly found pages discussing whether male circumcision affects HPV.

Related question, about claimed benefits of FGM for the woman herself: Does Female Circumcision reduce urinary tract infections?

Andrew Grimm
  • 38,859
  • 36
  • 141
  • 342
  • 2
    This article says the relationship between female circumcision and HPV was unstudied as of 2013 and recommends research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576405/ – DavePhD Oct 01 '17 at 00:22
  • 1
    Is female circumcision distinct from female genital mutilation? – eyeballfrog Oct 01 '17 at 03:32
  • 3
    @eyeballfrog IMO the former is a euphemism for the latter. Others may disagree. – Andrew Grimm Oct 01 '17 at 03:54
  • 1
    @eyeballfrog fgm is a superset of female circumcision. – Sklivvz Oct 01 '17 at 08:17
  • 4
    Since the graphic says "when he pleasures your clitoris", obviously they aren't referring to removing the clitoris. – DavePhD Oct 01 '17 at 14:11
  • 2
    @DavePhD Not so sure. The woman who's clitoris is pleasured in the text also has prepuce and gives him cancer, hence is not circumcised. – Hagen von Eitzen Oct 01 '17 at 20:02
  • 2
    @HagenvonEitzen: Purely reading the text, if the circumcision were to also remove the clitoris, then the husband would not be down there, since there is no clitoris to pleasure anymore. Which then renders the entire "germs under your prepuce" argument moot as the husband cannot possible be pleasuring something that's not there anymore. I would say that assuming that the circumcision does not remove the clitoris is a correct application of Occam's Razor. There is nothing that makes you assume it gets removed, and there's at least one thing that makes you assume it _doesn't_ get removed. – Flater Oct 02 '17 at 13:38
  • @AndrewGrimm: Without trying to offend, I think you're having trouble distinguishing between circumcision and mutilation, thus leading to the false premise in the question. The linked image does not address female genital mutilation. I can see where you're coming from, though. "Circumcision" can be used as a facade, to pretend that you're only doing it for hygienic purposes rather than sexual ones (which being it into mutilation territory). However, you can similarly assert that "mutilation" can be used as a way to denounce circumcision in general (even if it's only the prepuce). – Flater Oct 02 '17 at 13:45
  • @AndrewGrimm: Like I said, I don't mean to offend. I especially appreciate the "Others may disagree." you added as a footnote after stating your opinion. However, your question does suggest that you're assuming that the **author** of the image shares your view on female genital mutilation and female circumcision being equivalent terms. If you agree that others may disagree, thenyou must also agree that the author's interpretation might not be the same as yours. And if it isn't, then your question is based on a false premise. – Flater Oct 02 '17 at 13:47
  • 4
    HPV can cause tongue cancer but these medical justifications always seem to be rather missing the point when the motivation is religious. – TheMathemagician Oct 03 '17 at 10:51
  • 4
    ...and how does circumcision compare to getting vaccinated for HPV? – DevSolar Nov 13 '17 at 10:05
  • @Flater "Without trying to offend, I think you're having trouble distinguishing between circumcision and mutilation" As I see it, the difference between "circumcision" and "mutilation" is one of consent and medical indication, not one of severity. If you cut someone's healthy earlobe off without their consent, you're mutilating them (even though an earlobe is far less pleasurable than genitals, and far less useful, and so it's a far less invasive procedure than genital mutilation); if you cut their finger off because it's gangrenous and they want you to, you're healing them. – G. Bach Nov 17 '17 at 16:31
  • @G.Bach: That's a volatile argument. What about when it is performed by a doctor who is not aware of the lack of consent (for a justifiable reason, e.g. unaware of the patient being coerced)? Also, [going by dictionary definition](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mutilate), mutilation is defined by the outcome (disfigurement). Notice how the definition, including the etymology, does not imply that there was an _intent_ to disfigure. It also doesn't include the _necessity_ of the procedure, you can end up mutilated by a justified medical procedure (e.g. appendectomy). – Flater Nov 17 '17 at 17:02

0 Answers0